pawlentyGov. Tim Pawlenty unveiled a proposal on Tuesday to amend the state’s constitution in order to keep a lid on government spending. His plan would cap the size of the state’s general fund budget at the amount of revenue received in the previous two year cycle. But according to figures compiled by the Senate Majority Research office, Pawlenty has never submitted a budget proposal that would have met the fiscal strictures of his proposed amendment.

In 2003, Pawlenty submitted a proposed general fund budget of $28.1 billion — or $2.8 billion more than the revenues received during the previous biennium. Two years later the governor offered up a $29.8 billion budgetary blueprint, roughly $1 billion more than the state took in during the previous budget cycle.

The pattern continued in Pawlenty’s second term. In 2007, he proposed a $34.4 billion general fund allotment, $2.2 billion more than the state’s cash inflow during the previous biennium. Finally in January of this year, the governor submitted a $33.6 billion budget, $1.4 billion more than revenues during the prior two-year cycle.

In total, Pawlenty’s budget proposals for the eight-year span would have exceeded revenues by $7.4 billion. In other words, when Pawlenty actually had the opportunity to adhere to the strict fiscal stringency that he’s now advocating he chose not to do so.